Honest question because I really don't get it: why is it viewed so negatively to reactivate threads which are older than a year or more? People often say you should rather make a new thread than "necro" an old thread about the same topic. Why?

I've wobbled back and forth on this topic, and though I don't fully understand, here's a few (not all) reasons it's discouraged:

• Relevancy. The threads that have been necroed are not relevant in the present. The poster who necroed the thread could just have easily found a more recent thread with the same information or made a new post specific to their topic. Necroing forces readers to sift through potentially irrelevant material by people who may be long gone to get to the new comment.
• Necroposting comes off as a sign that the necroposter did not fully read the original post for comments, and may continue to do so as others reply.
• It's inherently strange to restart a conversation after year(s) of staying silent. (Before the internet, this must have been kept for very important discussions only, right?)

That said, the consistent growth of the internet means there will forever be new people who don't know internet etiquette and will necropost, even if rules forbade them. It's no use getting too upset.

It's an old form of forum etiquette*. It was really more of an issue when forum were busy (like, SUPER busy) - bumping old topics would clog up the forums and make newer threads harder to see; also a lot of forums kept track of your post count as sort of a "score" so it was seen as a spammy way to raise your profile/score.

Really on a forum this small and inactive it is not an issue whatsoever. Some members like to reply to every single instance pointing out that someone necroed the thread. Personally I find that far more obnoxious than the original necro.

So long as you have a point to make, I personally would rather see a thread get bumped than a new one start. We don't really have forum mods though. So if someone gets pissy at you, just ignore them is my advice.

• I'm talking old like.... late 90s/early 00s, in the actual heyday of forums. It's really not an issue in 2021.

To expand on what @Quivico said about relevancy; it also appears that for a high amount of the necro-posts, they don't even relate to the threads they're in.

I've stopped caring about people who necro stuff in the talk thread that answers a question about them. Because it's fun to learn about people. But I feel like it makes much more sense to make a thread for a new question rather than posting it on a previous thread, even if it relates to the previous thread. This applies to necros and new questions. That way, people can find the answer to the second question when they look for it, and not just stumble across it on a tangential question.

I have never given half a shit about this and have often wondered why anyone does. Bump an old thread and it's "OMFG YOU NECRO'D A TWO YEAR OLD POST YOU FUCKING NERD!!!" Post a new thread and it's "OMFG ANOTHER THREAD ABOUT THIS?!?!?!?" While there is something to be said for reading around to see if your topic or question has already been raised (chances are on a speedrunning forum, someone else has asked for game recommendations :P ) but most people just aren't going to do that. Hell, I don't always do that. So neither the necro nor the repeat post bothers me. It's just people needing help, so let's help them, yeah?

[quote=ckellyedits]also a lot of forums kept track of your post count as sort of a "score" so it was seen as a spammy way to raise your profile/score.[/quote]

Wasn't that the argument against double posting? (Gee, who would ever do that? :D ) It's also something that doesn't bother me. Edit your old post, fine. Add a new one, also fine, especially if it doesn't directly relate to the content of your first post.

[quote=EmeraldAly]I have never given half a shit about this and have often wondered why anyone does. Bump an old thread and it's "OMFG YOU NECRO'D A TWO YEAR OLD POST YOU FUCKING NERD!!!" Post a new thread and it's "OMFG ANOTHER THREAD ABOUT THIS?!?!?!?" While there is something to be said for reading around to see if your topic or question has already been raised (chances are on a speedrunning forum, someone else has asked for game recommendations 😛 ) but most people just aren't going to do that. Hell, I don't always do that. So neither the necro nor the repeat post bothers me. It's just people needing help, so let's help them, yeah?[/quote]

The reason some users get annoyed when a new thread pops up that's related to an older thread is simple enough: by asking the same question again people tend to believe the OP didn't research the topic on the forums enough, given that they think that "there's already a thread available on the topic with all the info", which in a lot of cases is true (some questions have already been answered in full after all), but this has also happened in cases where there's still room for debate. As you mentioned though, necroing will more likely than get you yelled at as well.

So, my suggestion is that in those cases, should you have knowledge of existing threads prior to yours, you should just acknowledge them and leave the links to them in the original post, stating that you looked at them but you couldn't quite find the answer you were looking for. If you do this they really can't blame you for making a new thread, can they?

That's a lot of overthinking (which isn't necessarily a bad thing) for what is in essence a very small, unmoderated forum.

Whether you are posting a new thread or bumping an old one, as long as you're not a bot I don't see why anyone should feel emotional about it either way.

While we're griping about etiquette, I also really dislike when people just reply to topics with a link to the pinned post. Yes, people should read forums first, but it comes across as rather rude and unwelcoming. Even a copy-pasted "Hi, you should read this thread (link) and also the question you have asked is better suited to your game's own forum than here" is infinitely better than just pasting a link and saying nothing.